table of contentsreasonable basis for our findings and conclusion based on our audit objective. we...

AUDIT REPORT

THOMAS H. MCTAVISH, C.P.A.AUDITOR GENERAL

MICHIGANOFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL

The auditor general shall conduct post audits of financialtransactions and accounts of the state and of all branches,departments, offices, boards, commissions, agencies,authorities and institutions of the state established by thisconstitution or by law, and performance post audits thereof.

– Article IV, Section 53 of the Michigan Constitution

Audit report information can be accessed at:http://audgen.michigan.gov

M i c h i g a n Of f i c e o f t h e Aud i t o r Gene ra l

R E P O R T S U M M A R Y Performance Audit Report Number: Secondary Road Patrol and Traffic Accident Prevention Program

551-0170-12

Office of Highway Safety Planning Michigan Department of State Police

Released: December 2012

The Secondary Road Patrol and Traffic Accident Prevention Program (SRP) is a State grant program that reimburses county sheriff departments for expenditures incurred to patrol and monitor traffic violations, investigate accidents, and perform other duties on county primary and local roads. Since 2003, all funding for SRP has been provided by a $10 fee assessed on most moving violations. Also, Section 108, Act 296, P.A. 2012, provided a $600,000 supplemental appropriation from the General Fund. The Office of Highway Safety Planning (OHSP) is responsible for the administration and distribution of SRP funds. Audit Objective:

To assess the effectiveness of OHSP's efforts to distribute and monitor the use of funds from SRP. Audit Conclusion: We concluded that OHSP's efforts to distribute and monitor the use of funds from SRP were moderately effective. We noted three reportable conditions (Findings 1 through 3) and prepared three exhibits (Exhibits 1 through 3). Reportable Conditions: The Michigan Department of State Police did not pursue legislation to establish a methodology to allocate SRP funds to county sheriff departments (Finding 1). OHSP could improve its monitoring of county sheriff departments receiving funds from SRP (Finding 2).

OHSP had not performed an impact and cost-effectiveness study of State, county, and local road patrol and traffic accident prevention efforts (Finding 3).

~~~~~~~~~~

Agency Response: Our audit report contains 3 findings and 3 corresponding recommendations. The Michigan Department of State Police's preliminary response indicates that it agrees with all of the recommendations.

~~~~~~~~~~

A copy of the full report can be obtained by calling 517.334.8050

or by visiting our Web site at: http://audgen.michigan.gov

Michigan Office of the Auditor General 201 N. Washington Square Lansing, Michigan 48913

Thomas H. McTavish, C.P.A. Auditor General

Scott M. Strong, C.P.A., C.I.A. Deputy Auditor General

STATE OF MICHIGAN OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL

201 N. WASHINGTON SQUARE LANSING, MICHIGAN 48913

(517) 334-8050 THOMAS H. MCTAVISH, C.P.A. FAX (517) 334-8079 AUDITOR GENERAL

December 7, 2012 Colonel Kriste Kibbey Etue, Director Michigan Department of State Police 333 South Grand Avenue Lansing, Michigan Dear Colonel Etue: This is our report on the performance audit of the Secondary Road Patrol and Traffic Accident Prevention Program, Office of Highway Safety Planning, Michigan Department of State Police. This report contains our report summary; description of program; audit objective, scope, and methodology and agency responses and prior audit follow-up; comment, findings, recommendations, and agency preliminary responses; three exhibits, presented as supplemental information; and a glossary of acronyms and terms. The agency preliminary responses were taken from the agency's response subsequent to our audit fieldwork. The Michigan Compiled Laws and administrative procedures require that the audited agency develop a plan to comply with the audit recommendations and submit it within 60 days after release of the audit report to the Office of Internal Audit Services, State Budget Office. Within 30 days of receipt, the Office of Internal Audit Services is required to review the plan and either accept the plan as final or contact the agency to take additional steps to finalize the plan. We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to us during this audit.

Sincerely,

Thomas H. McTavish, C.P.A. Auditor General

551-0170-12

551-0170-124

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECONDARY ROAD PATROL AND TRAFFIC ACCIDENT PREVENTION PROGRAM OFFICE OF HIGHWAY SAFETY PLANNING

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE

Page

INTRODUCTION

Report Summary 1

Report Letter 3

Description of Program 7

Audit Objective, Scope, and Methodology and Agency Responses and Prior Audit Follow-Up 8

COMMENT, FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS,

AND AGENCY PRELIMINARY RESPONSES

Effectiveness of Efforts to Distribute and Monitor the Use of SRP Funds 11

1. Allocation Methodology 11

2. Monitoring of SRP 12

3. Impact and Cost-Effectiveness Study 14

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Exhibit 1 - Available SRP Funding by County 18

Exhibit 2 - SRP County Expenditures 20

Exhibit 3 - SRP Statistics by County 22

5551-0170-12

GLOSSARY

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms 25

6551-0170-12

Description of Program The Secondary Road Patrol and Traffic Accident Prevention Program (SRP) was created by Section 77, Act 416, P.A. 1978, and provides Michigan county sheriff departments with grant funding to patrol county and local roads outside the limits of the cities and villages (see Exhibits 1 and 2). The Office of Highway Safety Planning (OHSP), Michigan Department of State Police, is responsible for the administration and distribution of SRP funds and can use up to 1% of the amount annually appropriated for SRP for administrative, planning, and reporting purposes. SRP reimburses county sheriff departments for expenditures incurred to patrol and monitor traffic violations, investigate accidents, and perform other duties on county primary and local roads and roads within county parks. In its fiscal year 2010-11 annual report to the Legislature (see Exhibit 3), OHSP reported:

• SRP funded 155 officers. • SRP-funded officers generated 117,694 vehicle stops that resulted in 1,475

impaired drivers being removed from Michigan's roadways; 84,468 traffic citations; 6,898 criminal arrests; and 20,141 assists to other officers.

• SRP-funded officers responded to 14,679 criminal complaints and aided 5,563

motorists in need of assistance. • SRP-funded officers investigated 12,511 traffic crashes, including 194 that

resulted in one or more fatalities. Since 2003, all funding for SRP has been provided by a $10 fee assessed on most moving violations. Also, Section 108, Act 296, P.A. 2012, provided a $600,000 supplemental appropriation from the General Fund. During fiscal year 2010-11, SRP expended $10.0 million, of which $100,000 was used for administration and $9.9 million was distributed to local county sheriff departments.

551-0170-127

Audit Objective, Scope, and Methodology and Agency Responses and Prior Audit Follow-Up

Audit Objective The objective of our performance audit* of the Secondary Road Patrol and Traffic Accident Prevention Program (SRP), Office of Highway Safety Planning (OHSP), Michigan Department of State Police (MSP), was to assess the effectiveness* of OHSP's efforts to distribute and monitor the use of funds from SRP. Audit Scope Our audit scope was to examine the program and other records of the Office of the Highway Safety Planning related to the Secondary Road Patrol and Traffic Accident Prevention Program. We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusion based on our audit objective. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusion based on our audit objective. Our audit procedures, conducted from April through July 2012, generally covered the period October 1, 2009 through July 31, 2012. Supplemental information regarding SRP was provided by the Office of Highway Safety Planning and is presented in Exhibits 1 through 3. Our audit was not directed toward expressing a conclusion on this supplemental information and, accordingly, we express no conclusion on it. Audit Methodology To establish our audit objective, we conducted a preliminary review of OHSP's SRP operations. We interviewed OHSP management and staff; reviewed applicable policies, procedures, laws, and regulations; analyzed and conducted limited testing of SRP records; and reviewed OHSP's SRP internal control*. To assess the effectiveness of OHSP's efforts to distribute and monitor the use of funds from SRP, we reviewed OHSP's fund allocation methodology, its county reimbursement procedures, and its process to monitor county expenditures, including the frequency * See glossary at end of report for definition.

551-0170-128

and results of monitoring visits. We reviewed quarterly financial reports and annual and semiannual program reports for randomly selected counties. We reviewed OHSP's process to reconcile reported civil infractions to revenue collected for SRP. In addition, we identified and reviewed OHSP's efforts to self-evaluate. When selecting activities or programs for audit, we use an approach based on assessment of risk and opportunity for improvement. Accordingly, we focus our audit efforts on activities or programs having the greatest probability for needing improvement as identified through a preliminary review. Our limited audit resources are used, by design, to identify where and how improvements can be made. Consequently, we prepare our performance audit reports on an exception basis. Agency Responses and Prior Audit Follow-Up Our audit report contains 3 findings and 3 corresponding recommendations. MSP's preliminary response indicates that it agrees with all of the recommendations. The agency preliminary response that follows each recommendation in our report was taken from the agency's written comments and oral discussion subsequent to our audit fieldwork. Section 18.1462 of the Michigan Compiled Laws and the State of Michigan Financial Management Guide (Part VII, Chapter 4, Section 100) require MSP to develop a plan to comply with the audit recommendations and submit it within 60 days after release of the audit report to the Office of Internal Audit Services, State Budget Office. Within 30 days of receipt, the Office of Internal Audit Services is required to review the plan and either accept the plan as final or contact the agency to take additional steps to finalize the plan. We released our prior performance audit of the Office of Highway Safety Planning, Michigan Department of State Police (55-170-03), in April 2004. OHSP complied with 2 of the 4 prior audit recommendations. We rewrote the other 2 prior audit recommendations for inclusion in Findings 1 and 2 of this audit report.

551-0170-129

COMMENT, FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS,

AND AGENCY PRELIMINARY RESPONSES

551-0170-1210

EFFECTIVENESS OF EFFORTS TO DISTRIBUTE AND MONITOR THE USE OF SRP FUNDS

COMMENT Audit Objective: To assess the effectiveness of the Office of Highway Safety Planning's (OHSP's) efforts to distribute and monitor the use of funds from the Secondary Road Patrol and Traffic Accident Prevention Program (SRP). Audit Conclusion: We concluded that OHSP's efforts to distribute and monitor the use of funds from SRP were moderately effective. Our assessment disclosed three reportable conditions* related to allocation methodology, the monitoring of SRP, and an impact and cost-effectiveness study (Findings 1 through 3). FINDING 1. Allocation Methodology

The Michigan Department of State Police (MSP) did not pursue legislation to establish a methodology to allocate SRP funds to county sheriff departments. For fiscal year 2010-11, OHSP distributed $9.9 million in SRP funds to 82 county sheriff departments using a fixed percentage that was based on population and road mileage data reported more than 30 years ago. Section 51.77(4) of the Michigan Compiled Laws defined the SRP funding allocation methodology for fiscal years 1980-81 and 1981-82, indicating that the allocation would be based on data for the period July 1, 1976 through June 30, 1977. However, for fiscal years subsequent to fiscal year 1981-82, there is no legislation that stipulates the methodology for how SRP funds are to be allocated.

We first reported a similar issue in 1997 and again in 2004. MSP agreed with our audit findings and during fiscal year 2004-05 held discussions with one legislator and various stakeholders. However, the legislation remains unchanged.

* See glossary at end of report for definition.

551-0170-1211

RECOMMENDATION We recommend that MSP pursue legislation to establish a methodology to allocate SRP funds to county sheriff departments.

AGENCY PRELIMINARY RESPONSE

MSP agrees with the recommendation and indicated that, while authority for amending the existing law continues to rest solely with the Legislature, it will continue to pursue amendatory legislation to address this recommendation to the extent possible.

FINDING 2. Monitoring of SRP

OHSP could improve its monitoring of county sheriff departments receiving funds from SRP. Improved monitoring would provide assurance that funds are spent for allowable activities. Section 51.77(2) of the Michigan Compiled Laws specifies that SRP funds are designated for reimbursement of expenditures related to making traffic stops, issuing warnings or citations, investigating crashes, and assisting motorists on or near secondary roads. OHSP's policy PROG 03 requires that OHSP perform periodic on-site monitoring visits at the counties receiving SRP funds with a goal of monitoring approximately 25% of the county sheriff departments that receive SRP funds each year. The policy also requires that, when a problem is identified during the monitoring visit, a follow-up visit is to be planned to help ensure compliance.

551-0170-1212

We reviewed OHSP's monitoring records and noted that OHSP performed 51 monitoring visits and 34 follow-up visits to county sheriff departments during the period October 1, 2007 through July 31, 2012. Our analysis indicated that: a. OHSP did not meet its goal for performing monitoring visits as follows:

Fiscal Year

Number and

Percentage of Monitoring Visits*

Number and Percentage of

Monitoring Visits With Findings Noted**

2007-08 9 (11%) 6 (67%) 2008-09 5 (6%) 3 (60%) 2009-10 19 (23%) 13 (68%) 2010-11 3 (4%) 0 (0%)

2011-12 (October - July) 15 (18%) Reports not yet issued

Average number of visits per year 11 (13%) * Percentage is of the 82 counties that received SRP funding.

** Percentage is of the number of monitoring visits performed for the respective year.

b. OHSP did not perform all planned follow-up visits in a timely manner. During the period October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2011, OHSP performed 22 monitoring visits that noted findings requiring a follow-up visit. We determined that OHSP had performed timely follow-up visits at 15 counties; however, OHSP had not performed follow-up visits at the remaining 7 counties as of July 31, 2012. We noted that these follow-up visits were outstanding from 2.1 years to 3.3 years.

RECOMMENDATION

We recommend that OHSP improve its monitoring of county sheriff departments receiving funds from SRP.

551-0170-1213

AGENCY PRELIMINARY RESPONSE MSP agrees with the recommendation and indicated that it will continue to implement efficiencies that improve the monitoring of program participants. MSP also indicated that it will review its internal monitoring policy to determine if modifications are necessary to take into consideration the amount of time necessary to perform both initial on-site monitoring as well as follow-up reviews with each county.

FINDING 3. Impact and Cost-Effectiveness Study

OHSP had not performed an impact and cost-effectiveness study of State, county, and local road patrol and traffic accident prevention efforts. As a result, OHSP could not determine the impact that funding for State, county, and local road patrol and traffic accident prevention efforts had on traffic safety and whether funds were used for cost-effective measures. Section 51.77(9) of the Michigan Compiled Laws requires OHSP to conduct an annual impact and cost-effectiveness study of State, county, and local road patrol and traffic accident prevention efforts. During fiscal year 2010-11, OHSP distributed SRP funds of $9.9 million to counties for reimbursement of SRP expenditures (see Exhibit 1). These expenditures were primarily for personnel, automotive, equipment, and operating costs. An analysis of the impact and cost-effectiveness of State, county, and local road patrol and traffic accident prevention efforts could help law enforcement agencies identify expenditure categories that consistently produce the most significant safety outcomes* and would provide OHSP and the Legislature with information as to where program enhancements may be needed or whether SRP is operating as intended.

RECOMMENDATION We recommend that OHSP perform an impact and cost-effectiveness study of State, county, and local road patrol and traffic accident prevention efforts.

* See glossary at end of report for definition.

551-0170-1214

AGENCY PRELIMINARY RESPONSE MSP agrees with the recommendation and agrees that a study is called for by the legislation. However, MSP indicated that the budget appropriated for OHSP administration, from SRP funding, was never adequate to fund a valid study. MSP also indicated that it agrees that a study is desirable; however, its ability to comply with the recommendation is subject to adequate funding being provided for this purpose.

551-0170-1215

551-0170-1216

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

551-0170-1217

UNAUDITEDExhibit 1

County Total Available County Supplement SRP Funding

Alcona 39,300$ 35,245$ 74,545$ Alger 32,200 14,182 46,382 Allegan 121,600 204,582 326,182 Alpena 57,800 11,220 69,020 Antrim 46,500 115,072 161,572 Arenac 39,600 19,091 58,691 Baraga 31,000 31,000 Barry 69,200 23,690 92,890 Bay 149,900 115,578 265,478 Benzie 35,300 33,237 68,537 Berrien 207,500 207,500 Branch 74,700 72,392 147,092 Calhoun 176,200 50,081 226,281 Cass 76,600 84,065 160,665 Charlevoix 44,200 33,938 78,138 Cheboygan 56,300 72,149 128,449 Chippewa 70,600 80,026 150,626 Clare 53,100 17,053 70,153 Clinton 85,700 10,297 95,997 Crawford 36,900 48,280 85,180 Delta 69,600 33,327 102,927 Dickinson 49,100 37,170 86,270 Eaton 109,000 76,134 185,134 Emmet 51,400 21,013 72,413 Genesee 438,000 438,000 Gladwin 46,700 35,368 82,068 Gogebic 41,500 41,500 Grand Traverse 83,600 1,662 85,262 Gratiot 78,200 123,779 201,979 Hillsdale 75,800 68,181 143,981 Houghton 57,000 97,546 154,546 Huron 83,800 24,051 107,851 Ingham 231,000 140,425 371,425 Ionia 74,900 65,102 140,002 Iosco 62,600 62,600 Iron 38,900 33,213 72,113 Isabella 78,200 65,410 143,610 Jackson 192,600 192,600 Kalamazoo 201,000 2,097 203,097 Kalkaska 43,500 38,752 82,252 Kent 412,300 6,816 419,116 Keweenaw 18,800 5,476 24,276 Lake 42,200 42,344 84,544 Lapeer 92,500 54,391 146,891 Leelanau 38,900 53,865 92,765 Lenawee 122,100 122,100

This exhibit continued on next page.

SECONDARY ROAD PATROL AND TRAFFIC ACCIDENT PREVENTION PROGRAM (SRP)Michigan Department of State Police

Available SRP Funding by CountyFor Fiscal Year 2010-11

State SRPGrant Award

18551-0170-12

UNAUDITEDExhibit 1

County Total Available County Supplement SRP Funding

Livingston 103,200$ 127,438$ 230,638$ Luce 27,900 27,900 Mackinac 36,600 9,673 46,273 Macomb 517,300 517,300 Manistee 56,900 20,725 77,625 Marquette 90,600 72,123 162,723 Mason 55,500 74,233 129,733 Mecosta 59,700 9,956 69,656 Menominee 65,000 10,705 75,705 Midland 83,300 89,614 172,914 Missaukee 41,500 3,897 45,397 Monroe 173,300 245,456 418,756 Montcalm 83,600 68,714 152,314 Montmorency 35,200 6,081 41,281 Muskegon 159,000 74,070 233,070 Newaygo 77,400 21,924 99,324 Oakland 845,900 845,900 Oceana 56,200 20,305 76,505 Ogemaw 46,100 20,228 66,328 Ontonagon 35,600 37,791 73,391 Osceola 48,600 9,135 57,735 Oscoda 36,000 14,881 50,881 Otsego 44,800 37,437 82,237 Ottawa 190,700 124,007 314,707 Presque Isle 42,700 10,607 53,307 Roscommon 45,500 46,850 92,350 Saginaw 247,200 247,200 Sanilac 89,900 1,773 91,673 Schoolcraft 30,100 30,100 Shiawassee 91,700 91,700 St. Clair 162,900 162,900 St. Joseph 80,100 78,963 159,063 Tuscola 96,700 17,160 113,860 Van Buren 90,100 55,097 145,197 Washtenaw 219,600 1,270 220,870 Wayne 1,440,700 127,288 1,567,988 Wexford 55,500 34,210 89,710

Totals 10,000,000$ * 3,537,912$ 13,537,912$

* Actual total SRP distributions were $9,925,373. Ten counties did not expend all of their allocated funds, and one county chose not to participate in SRP.

Source: Office of Highway Safety Planning.

Grant AwardState SRP

ContinuedFor Fiscal Year 2010-11


Available SRP Funding by County

19551-0170-12

UNAUDITEDExhibit 2

Total CountyCounty Personnel Automotive Equipment Operating Indirect Costs Expenditures

Alcona 74,545$ $ $ $ $ 74,545$ Alger 42,230 4,152 46,382 Allegan 300,127 24,865 1,190 326,182 Alpena 57,252 8,559 880 2,329 69,020 Antrim 153,637 7,935 161,572 Arenac 52,084 6,607 58,691 Baraga 26,255 3,875 78 30,208 Barry 77,894 14,597 400 92,890 Bay 211,647 17,799 22,605 784 12,642 265,478 Benzie 65,537 3,000 68,537 Berrien 166,849 9,088 14,915 190,852 Branch 136,907 10,185 147,092 Calhoun 216,348 9,570 364 226,281 Cass 149,058 8,868 1,539 1,200 160,665 Charlevoix 73,856 4,157 125 78,138 Cheboygan 127,836 613 128,449 Chippewa 150,626 150,626 Clare 56,171 13,982 70,153 Clinton 95,997 95,997 Crawford 85,180 85,180 Delta 93,423 9,503 102,927 Dickinson 86,270 86,270 Eaton 177,065 7,369 700 185,134 Emmet 65,250 6,290 873 72,413 Genesee 380,931 43,573 2,500 793 427,797 Gladwin 76,982 4,840 246 82,068 Gogebic 36,739 3,618 926 41,283 Grand Traverse 74,948 7,719 2,595 85,262 Gratiot 159,405 17,112 24,000 1,461 201,979 Hillsdale 132,882 11,099 143,981 Houghton 144,209 9,737 600 154,546 Huron 104,137 3,553 161 107,851 Ingham 348,291 18,101 5,033 371,425 Ionia 140,002 140,002 Iosco 33,139 11,928 7,691 2,393 2,757 57,908 Iron 60,513 11,000 600 72,113 Isabella 130,753 11,497 1,360 143,610 Jackson 142,216 9,959 33,816 2,574 4,035 192,600 Kalamazoo 203,097 203,097 Kalkaska 70,960 10,492 800 82,252 Kent 380,055 16,416 2,687 19,958 419,116 Keweenaw 24,276 24,276 Lake 69,066 11,453 4,025 84,544 Lapeer 131,852 8,245 6,794 146,891



SRP County ExpendituresFor Fiscal Year 2010-11

County Expenditures by Category

551-0170-1220

UNAUDITEDExhibit 2

Total CountyCounty Personnel Automotive Equipment Operating Indirect Costs Expenditures

Leelanau 76,990$ 15,775$ $ $ $ 92,765$ Lenawee 100,960 11,997 112,957 Livingston 204,849 21,754 2,534 1,501 230,638 Luce 25,044 1,193 1,488 27,725 Mackinac 37,485 8,184 90 514 46,273 Macomb 440,206 27,472 42,975 5,187 515,840 Manistee 65,227 11,998 400 77,625 Marquette 146,918 13,020 2,785 162,723 Mason 115,770 13,007 956 129,733 Mecosta 69,656 69,656 Menominee 75,705 75,705 Midland 159,999 8,793 4,122 172,914 Missaukee 38,005 7,392 45,397 Monroe 404,602 12,285 1,869 418,756 Montcalm 152,314 152,314 Montmorency 28,838 12,334 109 41,281 Muskegon 212,583 13,422 4,323 2,742 233,070 Newaygo 88,188 7,014 160 3,962 99,324 Oakland 791,966 53,934 845,900 Oceana 76,505 76,505 Ogemaw 57,590 8,738 66,328 Ontonagon 64,135 5,362 400 3,494 73,391 Osceola 57,735 57,735 Oscoda 47,293 3,588 50,881 Otsego 74,032 6,128 1,805 272 82,237 Ottawa 257,240 28,168 5,273 9,424 14,602 314,707 Presque Isle 52,915 392 53,307 Roscommon 79,756 12,594 92,350 Saginaw 213,092 16,160 6,645 5,891 4,287 246,075 Sanilac 79,600 11,000 1,073 91,673 Schoolcraft 0 Shiawassee 68,683 11,714 5,909 960 4,362 91,628 St. Clair 147,820 7,410 5,510 2,159 162,900 St. Joseph 157,963 1,100 159,063 Tuscola 105,027 8,530 303 113,860 Van Buren 140,129 5,068 145,197 Washtenaw 220,870 220,870 Wayne 1,252,488 81,557 75,899 88,839 69,205 1,567,988 Wexford 82,266 7,348 96 89,710

Totals 12,056,943$ 834,782$ 256,047$ 157,432$ 158,081$ 13,463,285$

Source: Office of Highway Safety Planning.

County Expenditures by Category


SRP County ExpendituresFor Fiscal Year 2010-11

Continued

551-0170-1221

UNAUDITEDExhibit 3

Average Number of Total Miles by Total Vehicle Stops bySRP-Funded Officers SRP-Funded Officers SRP-Funded Officers

Alcona 2 39,831 398Alger 1 15,112 86Allegan 3 76,727 3,029Alpena 1 16,460 402Antrim 2 31,961 1,501Arenac 1 21,396 1,079Baraga 1 9,307 29Barry 1 18,810 464Bay 3 57,183 4,833Benzie 1 13,781 218Berrien 2 38,096 1,250Branch 2 61,141 1,749Calhoun 3 85,648 3,334Cass 2 40,088 1,241Charlevoix 1 15,194 772Cheboygan 2 56,195 794Chippewa 2 57,236 1,628Clare 1 23,141 891Clinton 1 39,590 1,772Crawford 1 30,794 1,603Delta 2 31,392 466Dickinson 2 43,894 305Eaton 2 51,320 1,242Emmet 1 27,929 4,350Genesee 2.75 76,132 1,189Gladwin 1 26,134 1,184Gogebic 1 14,471 210Grand Traverse 1 16,424 871Gratiot 2 68,111 2,659Hillsdale 2 43,585 1,154Houghton 2 29,601 219Huron 1.5 29,852 607Ingham 4 82,501 3,879Ionia 2 37,660 956Iosco 1 30,679 690Iron 1 38,414 490Isabella 2 32,422 614Jackson 2.5 29,743 3,260Kalamazoo 2 53,086 1,905Kalkaska 1 20,683 961Kent 5 73,176 2,131Keweenaw 1 26,339 129Lake 1 22,904 597Lapeer 2 40,810 1,819



SRP Statistics by CountyFor Fiscal Year 2010-11

551-0170-1222

UNAUDITEDExhibit 3

Average Number of Total Miles by Total Vehicle Stops bySRP-Funded Officers SRP-Funded Officers SRP-Funded Officers

Leelanau 1 30,806 529Lenawee 1.33 27,384 1,650Livingston 2 44,854 4,211Luce 1 23,828 536Mackinac 0.5 27,783 403Macomb 4 40,833 2,872Manistee 3 24,071 644Marquette 2 58,944 1,170Mason 1.58 24,856 565Mecosta 1.25 17,969 190Menominee 1 30,194 88Midland 1.5 34,161 859Missaukee 1 18,978 402Monroe 3.25 62,042 1,033Montcalm 2 45,274 1,135Montmorency 1 21,085 368Muskegon 2 41,971 186Newaygo 1 35,433 1,067Oakland 7 112,979 4,070Oceana 2 53,664 948Ogemaw 1 22,542 1,007Ontonagon 1 22,218 31Osceola 1 17,412 545Oscoda 1 17,769 302Otsego 1 17,237 195Ottawa 3 35,088 4,155Presque Isle 1 28,609 275Roscommon 1 24,173 1,303Saginaw 2 47,641 1,096Sanilac 1 22,922 182Schoolcraft 0 0Shiawassee 1 23,074 919St. Clair 1.5 49,315 2,157St. Joseph 2 27,194 1,691Tuscola 1.5 37,873 2,369Van Buren 2 41,611 1,067Washtenaw 2.8125 63,797 1,260Wayne 12 164,941 16,995Wexford 2 33,257 259

Totals 155 3,168,735 117,694

Source: Office of Highway Safety Planning's SRP annual report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2011.

ContinuedFor Fiscal Year 2010-11


SRP Statistics by County

551-0170-1223

GLOSSARY

551-0170-1224

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms

effectiveness Success in achieving mission and goals.

internal control The plan, policies, methods, and procedures adopted by management to meet its mission, goals, and objectives. Internal control includes the processes for planning, organizing, directing, and controlling program operations. It includes the systems for measuring, reporting, and monitoring program performance. Internal control serves as a defense in safeguarding assets and in preventing and detecting errors; fraud; violations of laws, regulations, and provisions of contracts and grant agreements; or abuse.

MSP Michigan Department of State Police.

OHSP Office of Highway Safety Planning.

outcome An actual impact of a program or an entity.

performance audit An audit that provides findings or conclusions based on an evaluation of sufficient, appropriate evidence against criteria. Performance audits provide objective analysis to assist management and those charged with governance and oversight in using the information to improve program performance and operations, reduce costs, facilitate decision making by parties with responsibility to oversee or initiate corrective action, and contribute to public accountability.

reportable condition A matter that, in the auditor's judgment, is less severe than a material condition and falls within any of the following categories: an opportunity for improvement within the context of the audit objectives; a deficiency in internal control

551-0170-1225

that is significant within the context of the audit objectives; all instances of fraud; illegal acts unless they are inconsequential within the context of the audit objectives; significant violations of provisions of contracts or grant agreements; and significant abuse that has occurred or is likely to have occurred.

SRP Secondary Road Patrol and Traffic Accident Prevention Program.

551-0170-1226

oag

AUDIT REPORT

THOMAS H. MCTAVISH, C.P.A.AUDITOR GENERAL

MICHIGANOFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL

table of contentsreasonable basis for our findings and conclusion based on our audit objective. we...

Documents